Page 12 of 14 [ 220 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,778
Location: USA

16 Nov 2016, 4:30 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
To say that maleness is toxic or oppressive is not particularly helpful.
Many times, I've heard feminists say that feminism helps men too, by making it socially acceptable for the less masculine men. I'm all for this. As famous feminist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie said, "men are put into tiny boxes". This is unfortunate.

However, all this talk of "toxic masculinity" makes me think some feminists want to not only make it socially acceptable for men to be less masculine, but make it socially acceptable for men to be nothing but. I don't like seeing men put into a tiny box defined by masculinity but I wouldn't like to see men taking out of one tiny box and put into another tiny box.

I don't think "toxic masculinity" provides constraints on the degree of masculinity that is acceptable, more a small set of behaviours that we'd probably all agree are undesirable.

Take Ron Swanson of Parks and Recreation. Ron is a man's man. He has contempt for the government, vegetarians, people who rely on others, friendship, emotions, sensitivity, taxes, lying, the Federal Reserve, and everywhere except America and Scotland (because he likes scotch). He loves meat, solitude, freedom, construction, handiwork, hard liquor, honest labour, and facial hair. He softens on some of these stances as the series progresses, but he's the height of masculinity, a clear contrast to New Age vegan Chris or feminist nerd Ben or family man Jerry or failed entrepreneur/playboy Tom or goofball Andy. But Ron still respects women and indeed everyone's individuality. He gives great advice to his co-workers. He warns them not to be manipulative in their personal relationships, although it's good to do it if it stops the government getting in your way. He abhors violence. And although he usually avoids forming close friendships, he doesn't like upsetting people. Ron is usually presented as sympathetic, despite being ideologically opposed to almost everything that happens in the show; it frequently upsets the POV character, ultra feminist Lesley Knope, when she alienates him, and she will go to extreme lengths to make him happy.

Here is a fairly prominent feminist definition of toxic masculinity. Would ending this actually limit men in any way, beyond requiring them to just be good people? For example, abolishing the idea that men can never show emotions (except maybe anger or jealousy) wouldn't stop men from showing emotions if they want to be a stoic Ron Swanson.


Is there a toxic femininity list? There are some traits in mind.

Not yet. You'll have to make one Boo.


Well, from pure feminist perspective, I can think of a list of common behaviors/expectations (in the general population) that hinders feminist agenda on gender equality:

Examples of toxic femininity:
- Expecting men to pay for dates (even if he's the invitee)
- Expecting men to lead in everything.
- Expecting men to cover housing/wedding...etc the whole costs of marriage.
- Her only ambition is to be a housewive.
- Only accepting to date men wealthier than her.
- Expecting her daughters to help in the house chores while saying nothing to her sons.
- Mocking or belittling men with feminine traits/behaviors.
- Mocking or belittling women with masculine traits/behaviors.
- Telling other women how they should act more ladylike.
- Slut shaming other women.
- (When woman is working) Total refusal of the idea to date a man who is unemployed.
- (When woman is working) Total refusal of the idea to marry a man who takes the role as househusband.
- The total refusal of the idea to date a man with less education or less income than her.
- The total refusal of the idea to date a man who is shorter or physically weaker than her.
- Gold digging, of any type. No exception.
- More on gold digging: Expecting the man to buy expensive gifts while she doesn't buy any expensive gifts in return.
- Expecting man to always be the driver in the car.
- Explicit 'damsel in distress' behavior. Typical example: Waiting for a stranger man to volunteer changing her car's tire. Another typical example: Expecting a man to help her in the gym training.
- Asking the wealthy husband to hire maids for her and then exploiting and abusing those maids (most maids are women from poor countries after all) - this is more relevant in Middle east and North africa.
- And oh, things like this: https://stateofmind13.com/2016/05/17/na ... not-women/

There are much more, I am sure.

Such behaviors/expectations empower traditional gender roles hence hindering women to move forward.


and all of these are expectations created by men ( eg. the paying for the date thing, it's a way for men to show off). When have the behaviors are "expecting", you know there is a problem with your list. If you .


It doesn't matter who "created" this, but there are many women out there who expect it - surely some men do it to show off....that would be on the toxic masculinity list - but my post wasn't about that.




I am not supporter or fan of this guy, I don't even his name - I didn't check his other videos :but in *this* video, he's right.


The point is that you're misunderstanding the model the radical feminists use. While that's a negative behavior in women, it's still attributed to the patriarchy. As such it's a manner in which men oppress women. You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but you need to at least understand the model before you criticize it.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,778
Location: USA

16 Nov 2016, 4:30 pm

Sabreclaw wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
*blatant sophistry*


I warned you, you have been reported for trolling.


Can't any of you morons ever have a conversation without this "u reported LOL" nonsense?


Reported for personal attack (just kidding).


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,160
Location: Adelaide, Australia

16 Nov 2016, 4:42 pm

Ganondox wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Drake wrote:
It's only a patriarchy if it holds women down. 

Even if it was real, you don't replace male oppression with female oppression. You would need to fight against the people that believed that kind of oppression was a good thing.
It's not a replacing of male oppression with female oppression, it's that the male oppression ends when they no longer have a monopoly on power. Most feminists what both men and women to have power. Now, there is an extreme branch of radical feminists who want an actual matriarchy, but they are an extreme minority.
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Why is it bad for men to be in positions of power?
It's not bad for men to be in positions of power, it's bad for EXCLUSIVELY men to be in positions of power. That is bad because it oppresses women by keeping them out of power, and because there are places where the interests of men different from the interests of women, so the men in power aren't going to advocate for their interests.
How are women's interests different from men's interests?

I think if we all abandoned the "us vs them" way of thinking we would find that we're all more similar than we thought.
First, women and men are biologically different. Men aren't going to understand what it's like to actually be pregnant, for one. Second, society treats men and women differently, and thus they have different life experiences even beyond that.
True that men will never understand what it's like to be pregnant but how has this created a conflict of interests detrimental to pregnant women? What have men as a whole done to pregnant women due to this lack of understanding?
You misunderstood me. It's not that it creates a conflict of interests, it's just that the men are ignorant. But there are certain men who may benefit from policies that are detrimental to pregnant women. Anyway, you're being overly specific, that was just an example. The point is in practice men have imposed oppressive policies on women for centuries, regardless of their reasoning.
I still don't understand you. How have certain men benefited from policies that are detrimental to pregnant women? Did they benefit intentionally or uninentionally? If that latter, that would lend credance to the idea that such matters should be determined on a case by case basis, with respect to the individual, rather than using broad sweeping policies.

Speaking more broadly, how are men imposing oppressive policies on women?


The specific example of pregnancy is missing the point, as it's not about the direct relationship, it's about the long term divergence which is much more complex. But if you really want a specific example, there is lots of policies relating to maternity leave which pit pregnant women against typically male bosses. 

If you don't understand how men have been oppressed women for centuries, you really need to do some reading on history. If you want a modern example, abortion laws are the typical case.
But abortion is legal. It would be oppression if abortion was outlawed but abortion is legal.

Many men are in favour of abortion. Men want to avoid unwanted offspring to. Some men are understandably concerned about becoming fathers before they're ready or with women they're not strongly attached to. Believe me those men are all for abortion.

The majority of women are also in favour of abortion for similar but not all of them. Yes, there are people in society who want to ban abortion. The pro-life crowd.

You make it sound like the pro-life crowd is composed entirely of men. Not true. There are many women in the pro-life crowd. So if these proposed anti-abortion laws are being pushed by both men and women, how is that men oppressing women?

As for your maternity leave example, I think maternity leave is beneficial to both mother and child. Your example is the first time I've ever heard maternity leave policy being described as harmful to women.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,778
Location: USA

16 Nov 2016, 4:54 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Drake wrote:
It's only a patriarchy if it holds women down. 

Even if it was real, you don't replace male oppression with female oppression. You would need to fight against the people that believed that kind of oppression was a good thing.
It's not a replacing of male oppression with female oppression, it's that the male oppression ends when they no longer have a monopoly on power. Most feminists what both men and women to have power. Now, there is an extreme branch of radical feminists who want an actual matriarchy, but they are an extreme minority.
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Why is it bad for men to be in positions of power?
It's not bad for men to be in positions of power, it's bad for EXCLUSIVELY men to be in positions of power. That is bad because it oppresses women by keeping them out of power, and because there are places where the interests of men different from the interests of women, so the men in power aren't going to advocate for their interests.
How are women's interests different from men's interests?

I think if we all abandoned the "us vs them" way of thinking we would find that we're all more similar than we thought.
First, women and men are biologically different. Men aren't going to understand what it's like to actually be pregnant, for one. Second, society treats men and women differently, and thus they have different life experiences even beyond that.
True that men will never understand what it's like to be pregnant but how has this created a conflict of interests detrimental to pregnant women? What have men as a whole done to pregnant women due to this lack of understanding?
You misunderstood me. It's not that it creates a conflict of interests, it's just that the men are ignorant. But there are certain men who may benefit from policies that are detrimental to pregnant women. Anyway, you're being overly specific, that was just an example. The point is in practice men have imposed oppressive policies on women for centuries, regardless of their reasoning.
I still don't understand you. How have certain men benefited from policies that are detrimental to pregnant women? Did they benefit intentionally or uninentionally? If that latter, that would lend credance to the idea that such matters should be determined on a case by case basis, with respect to the individual, rather than using broad sweeping policies.

Speaking more broadly, how are men imposing oppressive policies on women?


The specific example of pregnancy is missing the point, as it's not about the direct relationship, it's about the long term divergence which is much more complex. But if you really want a specific example, there is lots of policies relating to maternity leave which pit pregnant women against typically male bosses. 

If you don't understand how men have been oppressed women for centuries, you really need to do some reading on history. If you want a modern example, abortion laws are the typical case.
But abortion is legal. It would be oppression if abortion was outlawed but abortion is legal.

Many men are in favour of abortion. Men want to avoid unwanted offspring to. Some men are understandably concerned about becoming fathers before they're ready or with women they're not strongly attached to. Believe me those men are all for abortion.

The majority of women are also in favour of abortion for similar but not all of them. Yes, there are people in society who want to ban abortion. The pro-life crowd.

You make it sound like the pro-life crowd is composed entirely of men. Not true. There are many women in the pro-life crowd. So if these proposed anti-abortion laws are being pushed by both men and women, how is that men oppressing women?

As for your maternity leave example, I think maternity leave is beneficial to both mother and child. Your example is the first time I've ever heard maternity leave policy being described as harmful to women.


The issue is more complicated than "abortion is legal". The exact laws vary greatly from place to place, and it's legality hangs by a hair.

With the many men are in favor of abortion thing, you're missing the point. It's not about not wanting offspring, it's about the physicality of pregnancy. Abortion means something completely different for the mother than for the father. Most men in favor of abortion are only such because they have been swayed for abortion. Also, many of the men in favor of abortion for the sake of preventing offspring want to be able to make the choice for the women, this is a historical practice and an example of female oppression, and it continues to the modern day in the prostitution industry.

The issue is you're thinking it's some binary division between men and women and ideology. Again, it's much more complicated than that. This is about the aggregate effect, not the individual. And it's not collectivism either, it's just statistics and their practical effect. It's not individual men oppressing individual women, it's the system being oppressive do to a imbalance of power.

...Um, no, no where did I say maternity leave was harmful to women. Read what I wrote again. I figured you could figure out what I was actually referring to was bosses NOT giving maternity leave.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

16 Nov 2016, 5:11 pm

Sabreclaw wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
*blatant sophistry*


I warned you, you have been reported for trolling.


Can't any of you morons ever have a conversation without this "u reported LOL" nonsense?


Reported!

:lol:



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,160
Location: Adelaide, Australia

16 Nov 2016, 5:16 pm

Ganondox wrote:
The issue is you're thinking it's some binary division between men and women and ideology.
No I don't think that at all. Please don't project your own ideas onto me.

Remember I said "I think if we all abandoned the "us vs them" way of thinking we would find that we're all more similar than we thought."


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,160
Location: Adelaide, Australia

16 Nov 2016, 5:25 pm

adifferentname wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Go to the next page to see Feminism Flamewar Part 11 :D
More than a tad melodramatic to describe it as a "flamewar".
Wasn't it quite obvious I was joking? I clearly meant this in jest :D
My dear fellow, were I being entirely serious myself you can be assured that my criticism would have been scathing.
My sarcasm detector must be malfunctioning!  :o


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

16 Nov 2016, 6:30 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Go to the next page to see Feminism Flamewar Part 11 :D
More than a tad melodramatic to describe it as a "flamewar".
Wasn't it quite obvious I was joking? I clearly meant this in jest :D
My dear fellow, were I being entirely serious myself you can be assured that my criticism would have been scathing.
My sarcasm detector must be malfunctioning!  :o


Sorry, Retro. I have it on good authority that I'm even more dry outside the confines of textual intercourse. It's a curse I tell thee!

Ahem.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,778
Location: USA

16 Nov 2016, 11:32 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
The issue is you're thinking it's some binary division between men and women and ideology.
No I don't think that at all. Please don't project your own ideas onto me.

Remember I said "I think if we all abandoned the "us vs them" way of thinking we would find that we're all more similar than we thought."


It's my fault because I worded it poorly, but you still misunderstood what I meant. It's more complicated than either "all men are like this and all women are like that" or "there is no difference between men and women". Let's tackle it from another approach: do you think autistic people should be represented with it comes to the concerns of autistic people?


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Outrider
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,007
Location: Australia

17 Nov 2016, 1:23 am

To answer your question: Nope.

I don't think Autism rights should be a movement, but there should be a movement for the mentally disordered in some way in general.

It seems no one wants to have more general and encompassing movements and feels the need to have specific movements for specific types of people.

I guess 'Humanism' and 'Egalitarianism' may be too broad, but what about separating movements by category instead of the specific groups within this category?

Instead of Feminism, MRA, Anti-Feminist, etc. why not Gender Equalist?

Instead of 'Autism rights group', why not the Neurodivese Movement?

In fact, this very website may be Autism specific but also welcomes Neurodiversity in general.

Instead of the 'Blackist' or 'White people right's movement', why not the 'Racial Equality Movement'.

Aren't all of these ideas more general and inclusive but still specific enough to inform others of what the cause is about?

I also believe sometimes the more general a movement is, the less clearly defined its goals are.

But 'Gender Equalist' is still specific enough so that the goal is clearly defined and in plain sight - gender equality.

'Humanist' or 'Global Equalist' may both be far too general so it doesn't communicate to people what you're actually fighting for and members of the movement may not know themselves without specific goals in mind.

I think while a movement being too general makes the goals of the movement unclear, the exact opposite is also true - the more we split movements into sub-categories within sub-categories withi sub-categories, the more divided we become and the more the movement loses sight of the original goals.

Just look at Feminism for the perfect example.

Some Feminist's have argued to me they're all very different and some Feminists can have completely opposite views to one another.

Apparently, according to wikipedia there are dozens, if not hundreds of types of Feminism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ ... ideologies

If this is so, why then does the movement actually still exist if its so divided?

This has just been my experiences but many here may know what i'm talking about - why does it seem so many people disagree with Feminism nowadays?

Why is Anti-feminism now a movement itself to counter modern Feminism?

Maybe it's because some of us don't even know what Feminism is anymore, because every Feminist we meet is so different and plenty of Feminist identifying authors have such contradictory and conflicting views with one another.

Personally, I'd still know what Feminism is if it didn't branch off into so many different directions and pathways to the point that all the different opinions and views muddle what use to be clear and defined.

And before any Feminist's disagree and say "Feminism is about women fighting for gender equality. That's all we want, and that's it. Simple."

It's not that simple. You are just one single Feminist, are you not? You can't speak for all of them.



AJisHere
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,135
Location: Washington state

17 Nov 2016, 1:30 am

It really is that simple, Outrider. The reason there are so many different feminist camps is that there are disagreements about the methods to be used to achieve that goal.


_________________
Yes, I have autism. No, it isn't "part of me". Yes, I hate my autism. No, I don't hate myself.


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,778
Location: USA

17 Nov 2016, 1:40 am

Outrider wrote:
To answer your question: Nope.

I don't think Autism rights should be a movement, but there should be a movement for the mentally disordered in some way in general.


That wasn't my question. The answer you are implying is that you are a-okay with Autism Speaks having no autistic people on their board (they actually do now because people complained enough and it started to hurt their pockets, but that's a different discussion).


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,452
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

17 Nov 2016, 1:44 am

Quote:
The point is that you're misunderstanding the model the radical feminists use. While that's a negative behavior in women, it's still attributed to the patriarchy. As such it's a manner in which men oppress women. You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but you need to at least understand the model before you criticize it.


But I was not criticizing any model, nor I was denying patriarchy influence in those behaviors (which you can say some empower patriarchy) - I am just listing commonly observable behaviors, that's all.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,778
Location: USA

17 Nov 2016, 1:50 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
The point is that you're misunderstanding the model the radical feminists use. While that's a negative behavior in women, it's still attributed to the patriarchy. As such it's a manner in which men oppress women. You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but you need to at least understand the model before you criticize it.


But I was not criticizing any model, nor I was denying patriarchy influence in those behaviors (which you can say some empower patriarchy) - I am just listing commonly observable behaviors, that's all.


Well, you were responding to a comment which was misinterpreting radical feminism, and the actual argument was all about the patriarchy.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,452
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

17 Nov 2016, 1:59 am

Ganondox wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
The point is that you're misunderstanding the model the radical feminists use. While that's a negative behavior in women, it's still attributed to the patriarchy. As such it's a manner in which men oppress women. You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but you need to at least understand the model before you criticize it.


But I was not criticizing any model, nor I was denying patriarchy influence in those behaviors (which you can say some empower patriarchy) - I am just listing commonly observable behaviors, that's all.


Well, you were responding to a comment which was misinterpreting radical feminism, and the actual argument was all about the patriarchy.


No, I was responding to the "Toxic masculinity" in particular and hence got the idea to make a Toxic femininity list.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,778
Location: USA

17 Nov 2016, 2:21 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
The point is that you're misunderstanding the model the radical feminists use. While that's a negative behavior in women, it's still attributed to the patriarchy. As such it's a manner in which men oppress women. You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but you need to at least understand the model before you criticize it.


But I was not criticizing any model, nor I was denying patriarchy influence in those behaviors (which you can say some empower patriarchy) - I am just listing commonly observable behaviors, that's all.


Well, you were responding to a comment which was misinterpreting radical feminism, and the actual argument was all about the patriarchy.


No, I was responding to the "Toxic masculinity" in particular and hence got the idea to make a Toxic femininity list.


...which was a misunderstanding of radical feminism.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html